Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Report Cards

2007-2008

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Overall performance in 2007–2008

Below average: 2 stars 

The performance of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) in responding to access to information requests declined in 2007-2008. Despite receiving fewer new requests, it saw a large increase in the number of pages reviewed compared to 2005-2006. It has also faced high staff turnover in 2007–2008. Despite this, it was successful in significantly reducing its carry-over of requests from previous years, particularly of deemed refusals as a percentage of the whole (from 33 percent to 14 percent).

In 2007-2008, PWGSC completed approximately two-thirds of the new requests it received within 30 days but given the backlog of cases, the average completion time for a request was 126 days.

There has also been some concern about the security of information after PWGSC discovered in the first half of 2007–2008 that records that were exempted had been inadvertently released due to a technical problem, which has since been corrected.  

Finally, PWGSC has developed a Three-year ATIP Improvement Planto improve its performance in terms of compliance with the Access to Information Act and started its implementation in the last quarter of the review period. The elements of this plan are promising. As a first stage, as noted above, PWGSC has significantly reduced its backlog of requests. As most of the elements of the plan are intended to be put into action after the end of the review period, the Office of the information Commissioner (OIC) is hopeful that, should PWGSC continue the implementation of the plan as proposed, and implements the recommendations contained in this report card, its performance should significantly improve in 2008-2009.

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Factors considered in assessment of overall performance 

Workload
  • Moderate decrease in the number of requests received (-30 percent) but a significant increase in the number of pages reviewed (46 percent)
Completion time for new requests
  • Within the statutory timelines: 76 percent
  • Within 30 days: 60 percent
  • Average: 126 days
Carry-over of requests
  • Significant decrease in the carry-over of requests
Time extensions
  • 53% of new requests are extended pursuant to subsection 9(1)
  • Length of time extensions: majority are for fewer than 90 days
  • Compliance with subsection 9(2) (notice of extension): 79%
Deemed refusals
  • 22.6 percent of new and carried-over requests fell into deemed refusal status (grade: F)
Consultation requests received from other federal institutions
  • Consultation requests treated as priorities and completed within 25 days on average
Consultation requests sent to other federal institutions
  • Prepares partial releases of information for requests requiring consultations with other federal institutions and with third parties
Process
  • Needs improvement. PWGSC needs to take steps to avoid delays (6–11 days on average) in the processing of access requests categorized as “Interesting” and “High Profile”
  • Prepares partial releases of information while processing large requests or in response to complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Senior management leadership
  • PWGSC proposed a three-year ATIP Improvement Plan to improve PWGSC’s performance under the Act.
Complaints
  • The OIC received 54 complaints (out of 849 requests processed or 6 percent) about PWGSC’s handling of requests

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has never achieved full compliance with the Access to Information Act in terms of responding to access requests in a timely manner, although it has improved until 2006 its rating considerably since receiving a failing grade in 2002. In the last quarter of 2006-2007, PWGSC experienced a decline in its capacity to respond to access requests which significantly increased the number of requests carried over into 2007-2008.

Table 1. Compliance history 

  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007–2008
Percentage of deemed refusals (delays beyond the statutory timelines) 17.7% 7.3% 9.7% 22.6%
Grade F C D B B F

The following sets out PWGSC’s key performance-related challenges and actions in 2007–2008, provides baseline information about PWGSC’s access to information activities that year and analyzes various factors to come to an overall performance assessment on a scale of five stars. The report concludes with several recommendations and PWGSC’s response to them. 

Key performance-related challenges in 2007–2008 

Workload

  • Carry-over of requests in deemed refusal status (those delayed beyond the timelines in the Act)
  • Heavy workload related to requests and consultations
  • Requests filed in bulk by individual requesters

Human resources

  • High employee turnover
  • Lack of experienced access to information specialists
  • Training requirements
  • Overly lengthy staffing process, which saw successful candidates receive offers from other federal institutions before receiving PWGSC’s offer

Records management and IT

  • Security incident related to the inadvertent release of information due to a technical problem in the creation of a release package in electronic format
  • Lack of space for current files in the access to information office due to accumulation of files from previous years.

Key performance-related actions in 2007–2008 

Human resources

  • Hired consultants to process files
  • Created an additional manager position to share workload

Three-year ATIP Improvement Plan (implemented in November 2007; see Appendix B for more details)

  • Reduce the backlog of late requests
  • Increase the number of employees and organizational capacity
  • Improve performance monitoring and productivity
  • Improve the workplace environment
  • Upgrade IT infrastructure
  • Get additional funding approved

By the numbers

In 2007–2008, PWGSC’s access request workload decreased compared to 2005–2006, as shown in Table 2 . However, there was a significant increase in the number of pages the institution reviewed over that same period. 

Table 2. Requests received and completed, and number of pages reviewed 

  2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 Change from 2005–2006
Requests received 832 869 586 -30%
Requests completed 809 815 700 -13%
Number of pages reviewed for completed requests 295,421 329,691 431,980 +46%
Average number of pages reviewed per completed request 365 405 617 +69%

PWGSC received 586 new requests in 2007–2008 and carried over 263 requests from 2006–2007 (of which 86 were deemed refusals ― requests delayed beyond the times set out in the Act), for a total of 849 requests. It completed 76 percent of the new requests within the timelines set out in the Act either within 30 days or within the extended timelines listed in section 9. It completed approximately 60 percent within 30 days. PWGSC reported that it took 126 working days on average to complete a request.

PWGSC made significant progress in reducing its carry-over of requests from 2006–2007. However, PWGSC’s deemed refusal ratio (the percentage of new requests and requests carried over from 2006–2007 that fell into deemed refusal status during the year) is 22.6 percent. This earned PWGSC a grade of F on the scale that the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) used for many years to rate institutions’ performance but is phasing out this year. 

The OIC received 54 complaints against PWGSC in 2007–2008 of which 12 were about deemed refusals. Of these 12 complaints, 9 were resolved (meaning that the OIC found the complaints to have merit and that the institution resolved them to the Commissioner’s satisfaction), 2 were discontinued and 1 is pending (See Table 1 in Appendix A). 

In addition to access requests, PWGSC received 276 requests for consultations from other federal institutions, which added 24,801 to the number of pages to review (equal to about five percent of the total page count for the year).  

Assessment of performance in responding to access requests

The OIC’s assessment of a federal institution’s performance in responding to access to information requests is based on the institution’s ability to respond to requests within the timelines set out in the Act but also on other practices that affect timeliness, such as requesting the shortest time extensions possible. The OIC also reviewed whether each institution documented its justifications for taking time extensions.  

Time extensions

Taking the three categories in subsection 9(1) into account, since some requests may be subject to more than one reason for the extension, PWGSC extension profile remained relatively the same over the previous years, as shown in Figure 1. In 2007-2008, PWGSC extended 53% percent of the new requests it received.  

Figure 1. Number of time extensions under subsection 9(1)

 09-01-30-draft-special-(full-version-9h45)_2-28.jpg

PWGSC case management system could not generate detailed information about the length of the time extensions it took in each of the three categories listed in subsection 9(1) (see Figures 2, 3 and 5), giving instead figures for two broad time frames: “less than 30 days” and “more than 30 days.” However, all categories together, 60% of extensions are for 30 to 90 days and 27% for 91 days to 120 days. The OIC reviewed the, ces PWGSC, and all federal institutions, must send the Information Commissioner under subsection 9(2) every time they take an extension beyond 30 days to learn more about the ATIP office’s use of extensions. The OIC corroborated these numbers.

In 2007–2008, the Information Commissioner received 211 notices of extension from PWGSC for 266 requests extended beyond 30 days. This represents a 79 percent rate of compliance with subsection 9(2).

Time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a)

The number of new requests for which PWGSC took time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(a) (searches for large volumes of requests and interference with the operations of the institution) remained stable compared to 2005–2006, as shown in Figure 2.  

Figure 2. Length of time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(a)

 09-01-30-draft-special-(full-version-9h45)_2-29.jpg

PWGSC bases the length of extensions on an estimate of the time required for search, the volume of records or both. The offices of primary interest are responsible for informing the access to information office, as quickly as possible whether the retrieval process will interfere with their operations. The access to information office then takes necessary time extensions and notifies the requesters.

Time extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(b)

The number of new requests for which PWGSC took time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) remained stable compared to 2005–2006, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Length of time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b)

09-01-30-draft-special-(full-version-9h45)_2-30.jpg 

PWGSC bases the length of these extensions on various factors, such as the volume of records and the number and type of organizations to be consulted. The vast majority of the time extensions PWGSC took were for more than 30 days. Through its review of PWGSC’s notices of extension, the OIC found that the majority of the extensions were for 31 to 90 days, followed by 91 to 120 days.

PWGSC reported that it is difficult to accurately evaluate the length of the time extensions required to complete consultation requests sent to other federal institutions. Consequently, it runs the risk of requests falling into deemed refusal status if the consultation requests are not completed within the anticipated time. On average, it took 40 days to receive a response to consultation requests and 78 days on average to receive a response from the Privy Council Office on consultation requests related to records involving Cabinet confidences (see Figure 4).  

Figure 4. Average response time for consultation requests sent to other federal institutions in 2007-2008

 09-01-30-draft-special-(full-version-9h45)_2-31.jpg

*“Overall” refers to the average response time for all consultation requests, which includes more than just those shown here. 

Time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c)

The number of new requests for which PWGSC took time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c) (consultations with third parties) remained stable compared to 2005–2006, as shown in Figure 5. Due to the nature of information over which PWGSC has control, including commercially sensitive information, it has to consult with third parties regularly when processing access requests. PWGSC reported that consultations with third parties cause delays, since there are few incentives for third parties to respond within a reasonable time. The fact that all the extensions PWGSC took under paragraph 9(1)(c) in 2007–2008 were for more than 30 days supports this statement, particularly since the Act allows 50 days for third-party consultations. Through its review of PWGSC’s notices of extension, the OIC found that the majority of the extensions were for 31 to 90 days, followed by 91 to 120 days.  

Figure 5. Length of time extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c)

 09-01-30-draft-special-(full-version-9h45)_2-32.jpg

In the interests of client service, PWGSC considers preparing partial releases of information when extensions for consultations with other federal institutions or third parties are for a long period or when the due date is not likely to be met. PWGSC also prepares partial releases when processing large requests or in response to a complaint to the OIC. PWGSC also noted that they inform requesters that additional records may be forthcoming resulting from outstanding consultations, that they will be informed of the outcome of the consultations, and that they have the right to complain to the OIC at each step of the process. The OIC recommends that PWGSC prepare partial release as early in the process as possible. 

Of the 54 complaints the OIC received about PWGSC in 2007–2008, 15 were about PWGSC’s use of time extensions. Of these 15 complaints, 7 were resolved, 1 was not substantiated and 7 are pending. See Table 1 in Appendix A. 

Proactive disclosure

PWGSC access to information office provides an informal review service to various organizations with PWGSC — most frequently the human resources, audit and evaluation and real property branches — to help them respond more quickly to inquiries, in particular, requests for internal audit reports.  

Categorizing requests

PWGSC systematically categorizes each request it receives into one of three categories: “Routine” (regular requests; 59 percent or 348 requests in 2007–2008), “Interesting” (sensitive or of interest to the Deputy Minister’s and Minister’s offices; 39 percent or 232 requests) and “High Profile” (highly sensitive and may require preparation of communications products; 2 percent or 6 requests).16 “Interesting” requests are allotted five calendar days in PWGSC’s processing model for review by the Deputy Minister’s and Minister’s offices, while seven calendar days is allowed for review of “High Profile” requests. The number of days allocated have changed to 6 working days in 2008-2009. PWGSC reported that 60.6 percent of the “Interesting” and “High Profile” requests were reviewed by senior management within the five to seven days allowed.

16 The findings of OIC’s investigation into a complaint filed by the Canadian Newspaper Association against all federal institutions regarding the existence of special rules for processing requests from the media cover the period between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2005. During this investigation, OIC identified PWGSC as one of the institutions that labelled access requests as “sensitive.”

For those that were not reviewed within the allotted time, it took an average of 6.1 and 11.4 days, respectively, in 2007–2008 to review them. However, PWGSC stated that for most of these requests, they were either completed on time or had already fallen into deemed refusal status. For a small portion of these requests, the categorization delayed the release of information such that it was late.

PWGSC also reported that categorizing requests as “Interesting” and “High profile” is done primarily on a case-by-case basis but occasionally to a specific type or category of request, such as those related to sponsorship during the sponsorship scandal.

The OIC’s view is that the whole review process associated with “Interesting” and “High Profile” requests should not in any way delay the process.

ATIP Improvement Plan 

In November 2007, PWGSC has initiated a three year ATIP Improvement Plan to address its performance in responding to access requests within the statutory timelines of the Access to Information Act. PWGSC reported that it plans to implement specific initiatives in 2008–2009 and to achieve an outstanding performance in 2008-2009. The plan has five key components: (1) reduction of the backlog of late requests; (2) increase of human resource and organizational capacity; (3) improvement in the monitoring of performance and productivity; (4) upgrade in IT infrastructure; and (5) improvements in workplace environment. The OIC views this plan as a strong step in the right direction and, if implemented as planned, will yield positive results.  

Recruitment and training

Recruitment and training of access to information office staff continue to be challenging for PWGSC. PWGSC staff reported that initiatives to improve performance that were put in place in previous years have proven ineffective. For example, the ATIP Development Program, intended to facilitate the recruitment of two candidates with post-secondary education per year, has been in place since October 2006 but has yielded minimal results, since the staffing actions to hire new recruits under this program were delayed due to other priorities. Similarly, the Training Team devoted to training and mentoring new employees and junior ATIP staff was deemed ineffective and discontinued because the training was not structured. A revised ATIP Development Program is currently being developed as part of the ATIP Improvement Plan. It will require all employees enrolled in the Program to graduate from the University of Alberta ATIP Certification Program. PWGSC has also offered staff to take this course on a voluntary basis.

Responding to requests for consultations from other federal institutions

PWGSC reported that it processes consultation requests from other federal institutions as soon as it receives them, completing within 24 days on average. 

Documenting extensions

As part of the report card questionnaire, the OIC asked federal institutions whether they documented on their request files justifications for taking extensions under subsection 9(1). PWGSC reported that access to information officers are not systematically documenting in the case management system the justifications for the time extensions or the factors taken into consideration. To verify this, the OIC reviewed its investigation files for nine complaints about PWGSC’s use of time extensions (the OIC closed these complaints as resolved in 2007–2008; see Table 2 in Appendix A). The OIC found that PWGSC indicated in the case management system at the time it processed the requests that it had taken extensions for them but did not necessarily document the justifications for taking them in every case.

OIC’s recommendations and the institution’s response

1. PWGSC should cease immediately to delay the processing of requests categorized as “Interesting” or “High Profile” and should measure the actual time it takes to complete these requests and any resulting delays.

Response

The Department has put in place procedures for not delaying the processing of access to information requests, including those that are categorized as “Interesting” and “High Profile.”

To that effect, a new practice was adopted to allocate 6 working days for the review of these requests by the Assistant Deputy Ministers, the offices of the Deputy Minister and the Minister. Compliance with the policy is monitored by the ATIP Directorate and is regularly reported on to the department’s senior management.  

2. The PWGSC Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) office should implement measures for data entry and/or reporting in the case management system to track the length of time extensions taken for more than 30 days, as requested in the OIC 2007–2008 report card questionnaire.

Response

The case management system, Access Pro Case Management (APCM), does track the length of time extensions over 30 days, but the specific data requested could not be generated. A manual count would have been required.

Due to the nature of PWGSC’s mandate extension of the time limit set out in the Act is required in several cases, since consultations with client departments and third parties are necessary because the records generally relate to procurement-related activities and contain commercially sensitive information of the third parties.

The ATIP Directorate will contact the vendor to explore the possibility of having new reports created in order to be able to generate the specific data requested by the OIC with respect to time extensions. 

3. PWGSC should fully implement the initiatives set out in its ATIP Improvement Plan during the next review period, or be at least well advanced in their implementation, and be able to demonstrate the progress made and results achieved.

Response

The PWGSC ATIP Directorate will continue to implement the initiatives set out in the ATIP Improvement Plan during 2008–2009 and 2009–2010.

PWGSC have provided to the OIC (see Appendix B) a status report detailing the activities undertaken/to be undertaken as part of the ATIP Improvement Plan with the timelines for their completion.

4. The access to information office should document on their request files, at the time the request is processed, justifications for taking an extension. These justifications should include detailed rationale for being invoked.

Response

The ATIP Directorate will follow this recommendation and put in place procedures to ensure that it be done in all cases.

5. The access to information office should provide the Information Commissioner a notice pursuant to subsection 9(2) every time it extends a request beyond 30 days. 

Response

The PWGSC ATIP Directorate has procedures in place to that effect. The time extension notice template includes a copy to the Information Commissioner. The ATIP Directorate will remind its staff of the statutory requirement to notify the Information Commissioner of all extensions taken beyond 30 days, and will ensure that the notices are sent.  

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Appendix A. Complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner 

Table 1. Complaints received in 2007–2008

(These complaints may refer to requests made prior to 2007-2008) 

OIC findings Nov. 27, 2008
Category of complaint Received in 2007–2008 Resolved Not substantiated Discontinued Pending
Refusal to
disclose (exemption/
exclusion)
16 0 2 1 13
Cabinet confidence exclusion 1 0 1 0 0
Delay (deemed refusal) 12 9 0 2 1
Time extension 15 7 1 0 7
No records/
incomplete
search
5 0 1 0 4
Fees 2 0 0 2 0
Misc. 3 1 0 0 2
Total 54 17 5 5 27

Table 2. Complaints closed in 2007–2008

(Including new complaints received in 2007–2008 and complaints from previous years)

OIC findings as of March 31, 2008
Category of complaint Closed in 2007–2008 Resolved Not substantiated Discontinued
Refusal to
disclose (exemption/
exclusion)
17 9 5 3
Cabinet confidence exclusion 1 0 1 0
Delay (deemed refusal) 5 5 0 0
Time extension 9 9 0 0
No records/
incomplete
search
13 4 6 3
Fees 0 0 0 0
Misc. 4 0 2 2
Total 49 27 14 8

Appendix B. PWGSC ATIP Improvement Plan Strategies 

Activity Target Dates Status Date Completed
Start Completion
       
I. REDUCE BACKLOG OF LATE REQUESTS
  • Clear backlog
Jan 2008 March 31/08
  • Backlog of late requests successfully reduced (155,400 pages reviewed), positioning the Department to achieve a 95% compliance in 2008-2009
March 31/08
II. INCREASE HUMAN RESOURCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Increase Number of ATIP Consultants
  • Hire two ATIP consultants to work on the backlog
Dec 2007 Dec 2007
  • Call-ups issued for 2 new consultants
Dec 17/07
  • Extend two ATIP consultants to work on the backlog
Dec 2007 Jan 2008
  • Call-ups for 2 consultants extended until end of March 2008
Jan 04/08
  • Hire seven ATIP consultants through competitive contracts and temporary help services (THS)
Dec 2007 March 2008
  • 7 consultants hired under THS and 2 competitive contracts awarded in March 2008 (include above 4 consultants)
  • Two additional consultants hired in June and July 2008.
Apr 07/08
Increase Number of PM-04 ATIP Officers
  • PM-04 Competition #1 for 6 positions

    - Hire staffing consultant

    - Develop evaluation tools

    - Evaluate candidates

    - Appoint successful candidates




Jan 2008

Jan 2008

March 2008

April 2008

 


 

Jan 2008


Feb 2008


March 2008

April 2008

  • Competition advertised in Dec 2007 and closed Jan 28, 2008
  • Evaluation tools developed in March 2008
  • Candidates evaluated in May and June - 4 successful candidates - 3 hired and 1 declined offer
June 30/08
  • PM-04 Competition #2 for 5 positions

    - Hire staffing consultant

    - Develop evaluation tools

    - Evaluate candidates

    - Appoint successful candidates

 

 

March 2008

March 2008


May 2008

June 2008

 

 

March 2008

April 2008

 

May 2008

June 2008

  • Competition advertised and closed in June 20/08
  • Staffing consultant hired in July 2008
  • Evaluation tools being developed
 
  • Cyclical Staffing

    - PM-02 Competition for 2 positions

    - PM-03 Competition for 3 positions

    - CR-04 Competition for 3 positions

May 2008 Dec 2009
  • Competitions advertised and closed in June and August 2008
  • Evaluation tools being developed by staffing consultant
 
Organizational Review of the ATIP Directorate
  • Organizational Review

    - Award of Contract

    - Review and Analysis

    - Submission of Report

 

Jan 2008

Jan 2008

March 2008

 

Jan 2008

 

March 2008

March 2008

  • No proposals received from THS consulting firms
  • MOU signed with Government Consulting Services (GSC) in May 2008
  • Interviews and survey of staff completed in May and June 2008
  • Benchmarking exercise with other federal institutions conducted in July and August 2008
  • Draft report submitted in September 2008
 
  • Development and implementation of new organizational design, including best practices
March 2008 May 2008
  • Not yet initiated
 
ATIP Officer Training and Development
  • University of Alberta ATIP Certification Program
Sept 2008 Ongoing
  • Included in Individual Learning Plans completed in May 2008
  • 11 ATIP officers registered to the winter session
Ongoing
  • Revised ATIP Development Program
April 2008 June 2008
  • Program revised to integrate existing and new ATIP Officers at the PM-01 to PM-03 levels.
  • Revised program submitted to HR for review and comments May 1, 2008
  • HR comments incorporated and resubmitted to HR for final review and approval June 23, 2008
  • ATIP Development Program approved Dec. 15, 2008
  • As a result, ongoing processes for the PM-2 and PM-3 and selected candidates will be part of the program
Dec 2008
III. IMPROVE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND PRODUCTIVITY
  • New “Zero Tolerance” Policy
Jan 2008 Jan 2008
  • Policy presented at the Departmental Policy Committee (DPC) July 14, 2008 and immediately implemented
  • Policy will be incorporated in Departmental Policy 002 on ATIP, which will be revised by March 31, 2009
July 14/08
  • Delegation of Authority
April 2008 June 30/08
  • Proposal for ATIP Delegation of Authority to ATIP Chiefs and ATIP Officers sent to Finance in Aug 2008 to obtain Minister’s approval.
 
Performance Reporting to Senior Management
  • ATIP Weekly Report
Feb 2008 Weekly
  • Projected yearly compliance and number of cases per officer provided in ATIP Weekly Report to ADM-CSPCB and DMO
Ongoing
  • OPI Compliance for Document Retrieval
Feb 2008 Quarterly
  • 2007-2008 OPI compliance completed in June 2008 and presented at DPC July 14, 2008
  • OPI compliance for 1st quarter of 2008-2009 completed in Aug 2008
  • OPI compliance for 2nd quarter of 2008-2009 completed in Nov 2008
  • Mid-Year statistics will be presented at DPC in Jan/Feb 2009
Ongoing
  • Senior Management Compliance for the Interesting Requests Process
Feb 2008 Semi-annually
  • Mid-Year compliance for 2008-2009 will be presented at DPC in Nov 2008.
Ongoing
Review of all ATIP policies, procedures, and training material
  • Interesting Requests Process
May 2008 June 30/08
  • DMO and MO proposed change in April 2008 to include ADM review in the Interesting Request Process
  • Improved presented at DPC July 14, 2008 and immediately implemented
July 14/08
  • Departmental Policy (DP) 002 on ATIP
Nov 2008 March 2009
  • DP 002 to be revised to be in line with TBS Directives on ATIP expected to be implemented by April 1, 2009.
 
  • DP 014 on Protection of Personal and Private Information in the Workplace
Sept 2008 March 2009
  • DP 014 reviewed and revised to reflect PWGSC organizational changes; no further modifications required.
Oct 07/08
  • DP on PIA
Nov 2008 March 2009
  • DP on PIA to be revised to be in line with TBS Directive on PIA expected to be implemented by April 1, 2009
 
  • ATIP Training for PWGSC Employees
Dec 2008 March 2009    
  • ATIP Liaison Training
Dec 2008 March 2009    
  • ATIP Security Manual
April 2009 March 2010    
  • ATIP Officer Procedures
April 2009 March 2010    
  • ATIP Liaison Handbook
April 2009 March 2010    
IV. UPGRADE IT INFRASTRUCTURE
  • New Computer equipment
Jan 2008 March 31/08
  • New computers purchased Jan 2008
 
  • APCM - Electronic ATIP Request Tracking System Upgrade

    - Improve Correspondence Function

    - Enhance Statistical Reporting Capability and User Functionality

   

 

 

Dec 2007

 

June 2008

  • Completed Jan 16, 2008
  • Several versions of APCM tested between April and September and rejected as there were critical failures
  • New version being tested and scheduled for implementation in Jan 2009
 
  • Laserfiche - Electronic Document Imaging System Upgrade
  • - Upgrade to v.7.2 to address user and security concerns
  June 2008
  • Testing completed in May 2008
  • To be implemented in Jan 2009 following contract award
 
V. IMPROVE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT
  • Office Cleanup - Records and Classified waste
Dec 2007 May 2008
  • Pickup of boxes by Central Records ongoing
  • 2 CR-4s hired in June 2008 and to help with boxing of files
Ongoing
  • ATIP Quality Circle
April 2008 June 2008
  • Two employees volunteered to represent staff at the Quality Circle
  • First meeting held June 18/08 to discuss mandate, etc
  • Terms of Reference completed June 2008
Ongoing
  • Floor Redesign

    - Construction of mobile shelving for files

    - Reconfiguration of workstations

    - Purchase of new chairs

March 2008 Oct 2008
  • Project initiation meeting held March 31, 2008 with Corporate Services
  • Mobile shelving constructed end of Sept 2008
  • Workstations reconfiguration and new chairs delivered Oct 14, 2008
Oct 14/08
Previous   Table of contents   Next