Statistics Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Future considerations

Warning View the most recent version.

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.

In this section we discuss some potential next steps following the review.

Dissemination of the results
Suggestions for improvements to the review process in future
Recommendation for an ongoing program of quality reviews

Dissemination of the results

Within Statistics Canada, the divisions directly involved in the QA review are fully aware of the results pertaining to their own program, but not necessarily of those of other programs. Also, many divisions not directly involved in the QA Review are very keen to learn about the best practices – and the indicators of risk – that have emerged. It is thus very important to ensure that the program-specific reports, as well as the Summary Report are readily accessible within the Agency. This can best be achieved by translating the reports and putting them on the Internal Communications Network (ICN). The status of the program-specific reports is internal working document available upon request.

Recommendation 27: The Summary Report and the individual program reports should be made available on the ICN.

Secondly, the review teams have amassed a variety of production reports, checklists and process flow diagrams that should be credited as best practices and should be accessible to other managers. Some but not all of these are suitable for ICN. Although the solution is not readily apparent, some means for sharing these reports – which in many instances would not be meaningful to another program area without help in their interpretation – is worth consideration. One option is a course where managers with high-quality production reports are invited into a classroom setting to “walk through” the report. Another might be to ask program areas to give seminars on their production processes, pointing out both the positive and negative aspects.

Third, the program-specific reports (and indeed the Summary Report) will soon become dated. A mechanism needs to be established to monitor progress on the recommendations made in these reports.

Recommendation 28: The nine programs should report on activities or modifications related to the QA Review in their next integrated program report (IPR). This will ensure that any changes since the QA Review are documented and publicly available.

Fourth, some external advisory groups, including the National Statistics Council, have shown considerable interest in the review and have suggested that some external review would worthwhile as well.

Recommendation 29: Statistics Canada should present the results of the review to the National Statistics Council and other external advisory committees for their review.

Suggestions for improvements to the review process in future

The Steering Committee believes firmly in the value of conducting similar reviews in the future. The experience is very positive and valuable to all participants. How could the review process be improved, based on this first experience?

First, while the current human resource environment is particularly stressful, it is likely that “human resources” will always emerge as a major risk factor in assessments of this type. It would be useful to develop an evaluation framework that helps reviewers to probe and pinpoint more specifically what the problems and remedies are. For example, staff shortages due to blockages in staffing processes require different solutions from an abundance of staff without the proper skills. Fundamentally, we need to push the analysis of human resource issues further. It needs structure and finer granularity to ensure that responses will actually solve the problem.

Second, we provide a cautionary note to not over-structure or over-complicate the process. The lack of time forced us into certain expediencies that, in the end, probably made the process better. The amount of latitude in the interview guide is one example. The emphasis on review teams meetings frequently is another.

Recommendation for an ongoing program of quality reviews

We recommend an on-going program of quality reviews (recommendation 8), with results reported to Policy Committee. The quality reviews would best be imbedded in the IPR; this would promote a careful weighing of the benefits of improving the quality of what we already do versus doing new things (or doing what we do faster).  Any shortcomings identified in quality reviews should trigger mitigation measures to strengthen the program in question. Unlike other parts of the IPR process, however, the quality reviews would not be conducted by the program itself.

An ongoing quality review program could be based very much on the model used in this exercise, with a Committee of Directors General to oversee the reviews, together with “volunteer” Assistant Directors interested in taking part in the exercise. The approach used in this exercise worked very well and has proven its value in contributing to the quality assurance practices of the Agency.