Preparing Government for the Data and Information Needs of the 21 st Century
Summary Report of an
IOG/OSTA Consultation Event
May 1, 2014
1
2 Introduction
In the digital era of information superabundance, the challenge for governments is clear: how will they put in place the processes, frameworks and capabilities to manage this information and data so that it meets growing and complex needs and
expectations?
Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) specialists have done their best to put generic “safety net” solutions in place to meet complex business requirements. But policy makers and program managers are now important players in the information and data game. New, contemporary
requirements and challenges have emerged that will expand in urgency and
importance. The burning issues of government, from accountability to open government to security and privacy, are largely contingent on the information and data insights of program managers and policy makers.
In todayʼs data-rich world, everyone is an information steward. The traditional mandated imperatives of technology solutions and compliance must be expanded beyond CIOs and IM/IT specialists to those who run the business of government. Thus, CIOs, IM/IT specialists need to collaborate with policy and program managers to find appropriate solutions if government is to build the necessary information capacities and change agenda for the 21st century. Consequently, the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of all players must be more precisely defined, beyond those of IM/IT specialists.
The IOG/OSTA Consultation Event
Digital information leaders from the public service, academia, and consulting firms were invited to the Institute on Governance (IOG) on May 1, 2014, to network, exchange ideas, and gauge interest in establishing a continuing dialogue or community of interest related to information management (IM) in a digital age. This unique consultation event, held jointly by the IOG and On Second Thought Advisory (OSTA), brought together a range of public service, private sector, and academic communities including program managers, policy makers, CIOs and IM/IT specialists to ask them a simple question:
how can we work together to create a sustainable change agenda that connects data and information technologies and management with the program and policy needs of government?
The facilitated half-day session was led by Toby Fyfe, vice president of the Learning Lab at the IOG, and Sharon Henhoeffer, president and executive advisor of On Second Thought Advisory (OSTA). After opening remarks and context from the lead facilitators, attention turned to rotating breakout sessions (see Annex B for the full list of questions that guided the breakout sessions and plenary discussion) that explored three topics by
3 answering some critical questions. All participants had an opportunity to give feedback on these topics:
1) Information as a strategic asset 2) Information management barriers
3) The ideal future state for information management
Facilitators then reported on the themes that emerged from these breakout sessions to a plenary group, which engaged in a rich and diverse discourse on the catalysts and prerequisites for changes that need to be identified in order to move towards the ideal future state. This report provides a summary of the discussion that took place during the breakout sessions and plenary discussion, as well as proposes specific next steps as a course of action.
Presentation: Managing Information in a Digital Age
Prior to the breakout sessions, Ms. Henhoeffer provided context on the current state of IM in the public sector in a 30-minute presentation. She addressed the topic of
managing information in a digital age by introducing three areas. First, she explored why managing information in a digital age matters. Second, why it matters to
government. And third, why a new approach is needed to address the transition from analog to digital IM.
By describing some of the drivers and impacts of IM, Ms. Henhoeffer provided context for the question of why IM matters to society generally. The volume of information recorded by human beings is expanding exponentially, the types of information are growing, and all of this information is being diffused across and buried within numerous digital communication technologies. This information is moving with increased velocity and so is creating an expectation that information should be available anytime,
anywhere. Statistics point to 80% of information in most organizations being
unmanaged. A challenge for information managers and their colleagues is being able to identify high value information and data from this mass.
The volume, variety, velocity, and value drivers of IM have had an impact at a societal level, in the workplace, and on governance. Society is being empowered and
democratized through greater access to digital technology and information. Workplaces are becoming flat and agile. Silos are being broken down and transparency is
increasing. Government has been a follower and not a leader during this shift to openness and collaboration.
The ongoing and emerging IM concerns for government in the digital age are numerous and complex. Recordkeeping (RK) is critical to maintaining an accountable and
trustworthy public service. Open data and open government are priorities and
challenges for the Government of Canada (GoC) that promise to increase transparency
4 and accountability, strengthen democracy, and drive innovation. The GoC needs to be better positioned for the rise of the information economy, as government itself can be perceived as an information business. To fully realize the potential of its information, the government will need to regard it as a strategic asset, in much the same way that it now views its physical, human, and financial assets. This includes cultivating related capacities and leadership among public servants and executives. If these information issues are not addressed, then the ongoing risks of scandal, declining engagement, and loss of productivity become increasingly high.
The transition from “analog to digital” IM is a challenge that requires a new approach.
There has been slow progress during this transition since the time that deputy ministers identified digital information superabundance as a crisis in public administration. The transition introduced an ideal opportunity for IM to respond to the crisis, but it continues to be regarded as an inconsequential problem. The GoC has been challenged to
develop techniques that move beyond traditional analog records management
compliance and control practices towards those that support the deliberate valuation and destruction of information in relation to public administration outcomes and purposes, which is consistent with the spirit and intention of recordkeeping policy. At the same time, the IM community consists of a disparate range of professionals who are struggling to leverage the policy and technology tools with a view to cultural change. The challenges are compounded by a government-wide emphasis on technology, not information, as a basis for transformation.
The real significance of information lies in its strategic value: it contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and policy through increased accountability, informed decision-making, transparency, productivity, creativity, and business transformation. This expanded view of information balances the current
administrative focus with a strategic one related to better government. A call to action is necessary to advance a balanced view that acknowledges and reconciles these
external and internal drivers. What is needed is an ongoing dialogue about the strategic nature of information in the program and policy functions of government.
Discussion: Breakout Session and Plenary Discussion
After the presentation and before the participants moved into their breakout sessions, there was a brief discussion about some of the most prominent IM challenges. The following points emerged from this preliminary discussion:
• The “thin slice” of unstructured government data that has real business value should be an immediate priority, and that simple, practical steps (like knowing when to delete email) can be highly effective;
• Technology takes priority over information, with the Email Transformation Initiative cited as a case in point;
5
• Securing the proper investment and buy-in when other “efficiencies” are being prioritized is a challenge;
• The Government was given two thumbs up for its support of GCDocs, yet the 2015 deadline looms large for many and the implementation of GCDocs to support the creation and destruction of information of value has not yet been realized;
• There is a perceived administrative gap between promises made to the executive level and the results that can actually be delivered, with the DM Roundtables on IM/RK cited as an example of an intention that has not been realized in practice.
While the participants were eager to continue this discussion, it was decided that it would be best to continue the plenary discussion after completion of the breakout sessions.
Breakout Session Topic 1: Information as a Strategic Asset
All agreed that information is a strategic asset, but that it is not consistently recognized or treated as such. The first theme that emerged under this topic was the importance of defining the value of information in the context of government outcomes and
government departmentsʼ and agenciesʼ mandates. It was agreed that assigning value at the time of creation, and in relation to the department/agenciesʼ programs and operations is the most logical way to value information; some pointed out that
informationʼs value could change over time, either decreasing or increasing (e.g. future research value is not always apparent to public servants in their day-to-day work), and that public servants do not always have the capacity to assign value. It was noted that creators could assess information value by determining whether the information is “on- target, linked to people, and accurate”. Over time, the value of information can become problematic if information is not maintained or made accessible to the public.
The second theme under this topic centered on the challenges to information being viewed as a strategic asset, particularly the fact that there is difficulty in sharing information within and outside of government. It was suggested that there is not a culture of openness around government information and a concern associated with sharing information. On the one hand, there is a desire for collaboration and a push through Blueprint 2020 to prepare for a more modern workplace with an agile
workforce, requiring access to and sharing of digital information seamlessly; however, on the other hand, there is a fear of reprisal for unauthorized disclosures and a
significant set of bureaucratic, technological, and cultural hurdles to get through. This makes information difficult to share internally, let alone externally. This challenge was framed by one individual as a matter of “reconciling digital culture with the Westminster system”, or to the structure of the bureaucracy more generally.
6 Planning issues emerged as the third theme on this topic. If information were treated as a strategic asset in the way that financial, human, and technological resources are, information considerations (e.g. value, flows, retention, etc.) would be integrated into project and operational planning; there is a significant cost to not integrating
information considerations into planning (e.g. ATIP searching time) and missed opportunities to leverage information more effectively for collaboration, business intelligence, and other purposes.
It was suggested that TBS should require all departments/agencies to submit information plans, in the same way that financial, HR, and IT plans are required
annually. Information plans could include how digital information will be leveraged and managed. It was suggested that in addition to the Chief Information Officer for the GC, there should also be a Chief Digital Officer to lead the changes required to prepare to value information as a strategic asset in the 21st century.
Breakout Session Topic 2: Information Management Barriers
The current culture in the public service was viewed as a significant barrier to IM
reform. These barriers exist at multiple levels. At the CIO level, there is too much focus on technology and not enough communication about the role and value of IM.
Throughout the public service there is a lack of champions or a single champion for IM.
There is no standardized training on what to do with the information that is created or received: “There is no acculturation to IM. When you come in, you donʼt know who does what, you just go where the river flows,” said one individual. The wider public service also has a general fear of making the wrong decisions, accountability, and taking risks. At the politics-policy interface, there is disconnect and lack of trust.
The issues that can loosely be grouped into the category of communication and language represented a second barrier. In order to raise the profile of IM, the right language needs to be used and the right communication approach needs to be used.
For one, IM needs to be communicated as a business information issue and not just as an information issue. Continuing to communicate the problems of the past is one
existing barrier. A forward-looking vision is needed instead. The language that
surrounds these issues should be proactive, not reactive, and needs to reflect the right scope and magnitude of what is trying to be achieved. Avoiding jargon is also crucial.
For example, “analog” vs. “digital” are technical terms that do not have traction with a general audience. The lack of a compelling story that explains the ideal future state is also a significant barrier to action.
The third barrier identified involves the specific acts related to the inputting and
retrieving of information. Inputting work needs to maintain the context of the information or risk losing significant value in its future use. There is continued risk in this area, because IM lacks representation in public-service competencies. One view was that
7
“retrievability is a big piece, and we need to get out what we put in.” It was also generally held that the retrievability of information was viewed as a critical barrier to maintaining information value after it is inputted. From the user perspective, it was considered a barrier that one cannot move easily from searching for information on general topics to taking a deeper dive when the right topic was located.
Breakout Session Topic 3: The Ideal Future State for Information Management
The participants in breakout sessions on topic 3 identified four basic steps toward achieving the ideal future state. First was the matter of redefining, reframing, or rebranding IM. Such rebranding requires a reorientation of more substantial concerns like determining what information means when related to issues like content, services, and curation.
The second step consists in identifying the challenges to achieving the ideal future state. The slow and costly nature of change was noted, as was the difficulty of working through cuts that hit IM harder than IT. Other challenges included avoiding being a target for further cost-cutting measures, information disconnect from citizens, getting buy-in for change, and moving from a retaining and supporting approach to a
structuring approach.
The third step was to identify opportunities that could lead to achieving the ideal future state. Opportunities were identified in the areas of leadership and accountability for information beyond the function of the Chief Information Officer, learning from past failures and successes, and working more closely with programs and policy areas. The link to Blueprint 2020 was considered an opportunity, although there was some debate as to the merit of a far-reaching vision compared to emphasizing the value of clear objectives and quantifiable progress.
The fourth step required to achieve the ideal future state was viewed as establishing IM principles such as being business-driven, painless for users/creators, having a right-to- know culture, and having an emphasis on curation. A possible future state in which a single portal of information accessed through hubs instead of departments was
envisioned. On this view, IM would be embedded in the business of government and it would be commodified (e.g., through outsourcing of IM support). While departmental IM plans and strategies would continue to exist, an overarching information plan for the whole-of-government would establish a balance between administrative and strategic information priorities.
Plenary Discussion: Catalysts to Achieving the Ideal Future State
The IM roundtable event culminated in a discussion of the catalysts of change toward defining an ideal future state.
8 Two issues generated some contrasting views on the discussion of catalysts of
change. The first was creating autonomy in the way that public services access information versus ensuring that the right support and expertise are available to back this up. Several participants believed that “IM is dead.” The possibility of abolishing the notion of the IM professional was argued, with a proposal to move from IM to an
information-service model. Specifically, one participant suggested that the ideal future state would be disintermediation: users would have all information available at their fingertips and on their desktop computer without having to call someone to get what they need (e.g. a Google scenario). This point was challenged, as it was argued that no matter how far information accessibility goes, the right information service and the right people (or “guides”) are needed to make sure that users can get what they need and do their jobs better.
The second issue that generated considerable debate was defining the right approach to change management, specifically, whether it was better to enforce change or to persuade others to embrace change. Possible means of enforcement of stronger information management were identified in the form of demotions, pay cuts, and tying performance pay to information-management objectives. Performance pay was argued as particularly useful when tied to a single information-related objective. Others argued that enforcement is narrow, superficial, and short term. Positive reinforcement at all levels of the organization is what is needed, supported by simple but effective transformative steps and a culture of fun rather than punishment.
The final catalysts centered on the importance of a champion with passion, dedicated to information as a transformative tool of government, who would persevere through obstacles and setbacks. “You canʼt just say the message once; you need to be in peopleʼs face everyday,” was one view on the mettle required of the ideal champion. It was also argued that, in order to achieve any ideal future state, vision must be
combined with proper execution, followed by continuous measurement of the success of that execution.
Facilitatorsʼ Closing Remarks
Mr. Fyfe and Ms. Henhoeffer noted that this isnʼt the first time that a discussion like this has occurred, but they heard from the group that there is indeed a desire to establish a change agenda. They asked: How exactly do we make change happen then? The facilitors said that they learned from the group that change wouldnʼt happen solely through articulation of a broad statement or through policy and technology without practical application to departmental needs. Any next steps would need to involve getting more granular on these issues. One path may be finding business exemplars such as a policy or program area where information is being managed well and bringing these types of models together into a case study for change. For example,
9 launching a specific incubator project with measurable deliverables related to digital information that is tied into a broader directional piece such as Blueprint 2020. A vision statement may also be necessary to provide a direction towards the ideal future state such as, “Government needs to the change the way it looks at information”. Whatever the broader statement, it is clear that information in the federal government will need to be practical, usable, and useful in the future.
Next Steps
The session concluded with unqualified agreement that the group should reconvene to further discuss the ideal future state and strategies for moving towards it. There is an appetite to make real progress toward the achievement of a new vision that prepares government for the data and information needs of the 21st century. Based on the feedback received during this consultation session, it is clear that the change process should be targeted to whole-of-government, the IM community, and managers.
The IOG and OSTA are planning to explore the following three questions at a second half-day IM event, which include:
1. What needs to be done at a higher level in government?
2. What do program and policy managers need to know?
3. What does the IM community need to do in order to be effective?
If you have interest in continuing to engage in this consultation, and you are interested in exploring these three questions, then please note that the next discussion will take place at the Institute on Governance on June 12 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Feel free to confirm your intention to attend this follow-up discussion with Lisa Levesque by email at llevesque@iog.ca or by telephone at 613.562.0090.
10 Annex A – Participant List
Name Title Organization
Marj Akerley Chief Information Officer Justice Canada Christopher
Allison
Manager, Traveler Modernization Unit Canada Border Services Agency
Trevor Banks Head, IM Policies and Best Practices Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Céline Beauregard
Director, Information and Library Management
Canada School of Public Service
Jean-Yves Blanchard
Solutions and Information Management Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Paul Johnson Byrne
Business and IM Analyst On Second Thought Advisory
Nicholas Charney Senior Research Officer Institute on Governance Martin Chenier Client and Partner Liaison On Second Thought
Advisory Chrystia
Chudczak
Assistant Commissioner and Comptroller, Northern Pipeline Agency
Natural Resources Canada
Jim Clark Project Manager, Military Satellite
Communication Information Management Group
National Defence
Peter Cowan Consultant; past Director, Enterprise IM Information Management Division
Natural Resources Canada
Pierre Desrochers Senior Analyst, GCDOCS Enterprise Program Management Office
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Andrezza Falk Business and IM Analyst On Second Thought Advisory
Dr. Mary Francoli Associate Professor, Communication Studies
Carleton University
11 Toby Fyfe Vice President, Learning Lab Institute on Governance Ross Gordon Director, ECollab, Library and Records
Management Service
Environment Canada
Sharon Henhoeffer
President and Executive Advisor On Second Thought Advisory
Jean Labbé Assistant Director, Field 7 Integration Statistics Canada Wayne Lepine Director General, Information and
Relationship Management Directorate
Canada Revenue Agency
Dustin Munroe Research Officer Institute on Governance Antonio Pantieras Manager IM, Client Services and
Information Management
Public Service Commission of Canada
Ruth Rayman Director, Research and Development Information and Communications Technologies
National Research Council Canada
John Read Consultant and Procurement Columnist Canadian Government Executive magazine Michel Richard Librarian, Service and GC 2.0 Policy and
Community Enablement Division
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Ian Richardson Director Canada Revenue Agency
Anastasia
Rodgers IM Client Executive
On Second Thought Advisory
Guy Tremblay Manager, Information Management Division, Strategy and Integration Branch
Canada Revenue Agency
12 Annex B – Discussion Questions from the “Preparing Government for the Data and Information Needs of the 21st Century” Consultation Event
Breakout Sessions
Information as a Strategic Asset
What is the role of information in the digital age – how do we know what is of value in the abundance of volume?
What changes need to be addressed to cope with digital?
What are the costs and benefits of how information is currently managed?
What changes (cultural, organizational, etc.) are needed to meet digital age requirements?
Barriers
What barriers exist for the IM community (e.g. barriers between IM community and other communities, commitment at the top, willingness to invest, lack of info
accountability in performance agreements, etc)?
What are barriers to using information as a strategic asset within your organization?
What are the barriers in your organization to managing information in a digital age?
Ideal Future State
Why does information matter? Why does managing information matter?
What is the ideal future state of managing digital information in the Government of Canada?
What is the role for information in business?
What does a healthy information culture look like in a government organization? Why does this matter? What are the risks of getting this wrong?
Plenary Discussion
Having discussed information as an asset, current barriers, and the future ideal state, how do we get there?
What are some of the concrete actions we can take as a community?
Whom else ought we engage?
How do we measure progress?
When can we declare success?
