Annual Report: 2002-2003

CHAPTER II:
ADDRESSING THE CRISIS IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The progress that is being made in strengthening IM practices and infrastructure is both overdue and welcome. There are now clear signs of a bureaucratic will to do something. It will take time, however, for awareness and effort to be translated into more efficient and effective recordkeeping practices. The pace of change is often glacially slow within large bureaucracies with competing and changing priorities. The Management of Government Information policy--a basic set of IM precepts--took almost three years to develop and approve.

In some areas of the government, there is still little visible evidence of change. Program and policy managers, information specialists, auditors, legal staff and parliamentarians who rely on good business records to do their work continue to be frustrated. Audit reports and newspaper headlines still remind the public that it cannot always access or trust government information to which they have a right.

As the Information Commissioner emphasized in his 2000-2001 Report to Parliament, recordkeeping will improve when openness and transparency are "reinforced in law, championed at the highest political levels, communicated as a fundamental expectation of public service, consistently demonstrated in practice and adequately rewarded."^xiii

The significant progress that has occurred needs to be recognized and applauded. The government must accelerate its efforts in the above areas, however, so the IM momentum is not lost. As well, government needs to take action in the following areas:

Parliament must play a more active oversight role for IM.

The effectiveness of Parliament as a fundamental institution of democratic governance depends on the information it receives, considers and is able to act upon. The Auditor General and others (including parliamentarians themselves) have repeatedly noted that Parliament often does not receive the information it needs to exercise its role effectively.

It is essential that Parliament demand the information it needs to review and approve programs and expenditures, assess their effectiveness, consider new legislation and perform other functions. It has the authority to require officials to provide complete and credible information about their programs, activities and expenditures and should rigorously question the information it receives. It also needs to assure itself (and Canadians) that departments have the necessary underlying IM infrastructure and recordkeeping practices in place. It can accomplish these ends through its standing and special committees, through reports and audits it requests from departments (or undertakes itself) and through other opportunities to exercise oversight.

Access to reliable information about government activities and decisions lies at the core of responsible representative government. Parliament needs to play a more active role in promoting better information management in support of these goals. This will not only enhance democratic governance, but make Parliament a stronger and more relevant institution.

The need for a recordkeeping law

Federal government recordkeeping policies and practices still lack a strong foundation in law. Canada has legislation dealing with certain aspects of information management (e.g., public access and privacy, archival preservation). What is missing is legislation that deals explicitly and comprehensively with the creation of records and the government's stewardship of recorded information over its complete life cycle.

Although some program-specific legislation includes records provisions, Canada does not impose a general legal obligation on ministers of the Crown and their departments to create and maintain full and accurate records of their business activities (the duty to document).^xiv In an increasingly casual communications environment, we can no longer presume that appropriate records are being created and kept (e.g., the minutes of meetings are no longer routinely taken).

The purpose of a recordkeeping law would be to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of government operations and the availability and quality of the information on which they depend. The law would recognize the business and other value of government's information assets in all forms (including their importance for public safety and security) and require their effective life-cycle management. Many other countries have passed records legislation to underpin these objectives.

A new recordkeeping law might include the following elements:

• Identify basic information management principles, values and objectives regarding government integrity, security, effectiveness, accountability, asset management, etc.;
• Require ministers and agency heads to ensure that records are created, acquired and maintained that adequately document key organization functions, activities, decisions, policies and transactions;
• Require that a records and information management program be established within each department/agency and appropriately resourced;
• Require that a senior executive be designated within each department with overall responsibility for information management;
• Require that the program include standards, procedures and training related to documenting business activities, identifying and organizing records, storing and protecting records, providing access to records; and retaining and disposing of records (all of these in conformity with other laws and standards);
• Require that all government programs and operations adhere to the above standards and practices in the management of recorded information;
• Require that certain types of organizations doing business with the federal government or receiving substantial federal funds have in place adequate records management;
• Require that technology-dependent records be kept accessible for the duration of their authorized retention periods;
• Provide for the monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the records and information management program (and of the performance of related officials);
• Establish consequences for failing to meet the requirements of the Act (and identify the circumstances under which they might apply).

At its centre, the law would provide a legal basis for the Management of Government Information policy and its key provisions. It could potentially provide a foundation for other government information-centred policies as well.^xv

The value of and suggested options for a new information law were discussed at length in the Information Commissioner's 2000-2001 Annual Report. The Government of Canada should formally assess the merits of a recordkeeping law.

Clearer strategies and roles for information management are needed.

While central agency leadership in IM is increasing, there is still a need for a more coherent "whole of government" approach. There is no clearly defined government strategy or roadmap for improving IM. Its absence increases the risk of poor coordination, fragmented initiatives and blurred accountability. It needs to be developed by central agencies and departments and reviewed by the IM committees.

The strategy could help clarify the roles and relationship between the CIO Branch and the Library and Archives of Canada. Although a valuable partnership is evolving, it is difficult to determine who is accountable overall as well as for specific initiatives. The Treasury Board Secretariat's internet site on IM governance lists only the archival preservation responsibilities of the National Archives. Treasury Board Secretariat's own IM role is described as relating to the "management of the government's human, financial and material resources".^xvi Inexplicably, the management of information resources is not mentioned. Within the CIO Branch itself, key IM units now have different reporting relationships, making coordination more difficult.

Leadership for information management would also be greater if the Chief Information Officer were given a more direct and active role in the review of departmental estimates. This would help ensure that key information management issues are identified and addressed in major program plans.

At the departmental level, leadership for IM is still often absent. Attendees at the February IM Symposium identified "lack of leadership" as the greatest barrier to good information management in their institutions. Treasury Board guidelines for IM governance and accountability need to be disseminated and actively promoted.

Strong support is needed to implement the Management of Government Information policy.

To support the implementation of MGI, departments will need a phased implementation strategy and operational plan. They will also need practical tools and appropriate models in various areas. These include models for developing an IM business case, evaluating IM risks and benefits, documenting business activities, creating file plans, determining records retention periods, managing e-mail and web documents, devising training plans, and others. Portions of this tool kit already exist within the government and others can be adapted from international models. It is the intention of the Chief Information Officer Branch and the Library and Archives of Canada to make such materials and related supports available. As yet, the resource materials on central agency IM websites are incomplete and the sites are not yet sufficiently structured, integrated, coordinated and linked. As part of government-wide implementation plan for MGI, these resources need to be available to help guide departments and sustain the current momentum.

Information management must be better funded.

Even with good laws, policies and leadership in place, a strong IM infrastructure cannot be developed and sustained without sufficient funds. In earlier government program reviews, records management programs were mistakenly seen as low-level administrative activities and were decimated. Finding and developing qualified staff, introducing electronic records management systems and developing department-specific policies and standards require money. The Management of Government Information policy has raised expectations of the resources needed to implement it.

Central agencies, too, need the funds to plan and implement corporate IM initiatives. The Library and Archives of Canada, for example, is attempting to build a strong government-wide leadership role without the necessary resources to sustain it.

Progress in implementing information management policies and practices needs to be objectively evaluated.

The introduction of the MGI policy is encouraging departments to assess the current state of their IM infrastructure and to plan improvements. Over the longer term, departments regularly need to assess their progress in implementing the policy. Clearly, the internal evaluation of programs is the most effective strategy for generating greater management ownership of programs and results. Self-assessment by program managers is not always sufficiently objective, however, nor does it provide a whole-of-government view of the state of IM. Important roles need to be played by internal auditors, central agencies and by the Auditor General in assessing whether records management programs meet standards.^xvii Once the MGI policy has had time to take effect, the Office of the Auditor General should assess the success of its implementation in individual departments and on a whole-of-government basis.

The Information Commissioner also recommended (in the 2000-2001 Report) that all program and spending audits should directly address program-centred information management issues and gaps.

A barrier to generating wider appreciation of IM (as well as in evaluating IM initiatives) is the difficulty in measuring its costs, risks, benefits and other impacts. As information management permeates all aspects of government operations, it is often difficult to quantify the above elements or attribute impacts to specific IM activities. Still, better metrics are needed to justify, develop, implement and evaluate IM initiatives. Useful approaches are available. Governments (including the federal government) and the private sector have, for example, developed risk assessment methodologies that can be adapted to an information management context. The Gartner Group has researched the amount of time that workers take (and often waste) in locating and retrieving records, reviewing and responding to e-mail and performing other information management tasks.^xviii Methodologies exist to measure the value of "intellectual capital" embedded in records and documents.^xix As well, many departments have undertaken successful initiatives that provide specific examples of financial or other benefits (lower storage costs, shorter processing time, etc.).

The federal government (as well as Ontario and others) have developed privacy impact assessment tools. A similar methodology could be used to ensure that other information management issues and impacts are considered in the development or re-design of programs, services and information systems.

The federal government should undertake research into IM metrics, codify useful approaches and assemble a catalogue of direct and indirect (proxy) measures as well as examples of real-world benefits. This would be useful in helping departments justify, plan and evaluate IM projects and the performance of managers responsible for them.

An IM education and training strategy is needed.

There is increasing attention to the need to modernize the public service and ensure that it has the skills it needs to manage in an information and technology-rich environment. The most recent budget statement announced new initiatives in this area. Information management needs to be an important part of these efforts. The ability to manage and effectively use information is a core skill that needs to be at the centre of any public sector education and training strategy.

The Chief Information Officer Branch, the Library and Archives of Canada, the Canadian Centre for Management Development, the Knowledge Institute of Public Works and Government Services (and others) should collaborate to develop a strategy for IM education and training. The strategy should identify the topics that elected officials, senior executives, middle managers, information specialists and other government staff need to know. It should identify leadership for developing and implementing IM education and training programs for each audience. Significant roles can also be played by other government, professional and private sector bodies.

A Fundamental Priority - Changing the Bureaucratic and Political Culture

Some issues are more fundamental, complex and difficult to change. Despite the efforts of many conscientious and dedicated civil servants, large bureaucracies sustain a culture that resists openness and transparency. An introverted and risk-reluctant command-and-control hierarchy still characterizes many parts of the federal government. A dogged unwillingness to admit error still persists. Where this is the case, the tendency is to hold onto information rather than to release it and to place loyalty to a minister above the public interest. Senior managers at the February IM Symposium identified "organizational culture" as the second greatest barrier to good information management (after "lack of leadership").^xx

Change must come from the ranks of the most senior public servants and from the political level itself. The best guarantee of that change is greater access by the public, the media, non-government organizations and others to information that enables them to scrutinize the workings of government and hold public servants and politicians accountable. The Privy Council Office can play an important role in this process as it links the political and public service dimensions of government. It has the opportunity and the responsibility to advance information management and access as it develops a strong vision of evidence-based governance in the electronic age. Good records and effective information management provide the evidence needed to make decisions and take action that identify, protect and serve the public good.