1. BRANCH PROCESS REVIEW PROGRAM MULTI-YEAR PLAN 2006-2012

PROGRAMME D'EXAMEN DES PROCESSUS EN VIGUEUR DANS LES DIRECTIONS -
PLAN PLURIANNUEL 2006-2012

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan 2006-2012 as detailed in Document 1.

RECOMMENDATION DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve le Programme d'examen des processus en vigueur dans les directions visant le plan pluriannuel 2006-2012, tel qu'il est précisé dans le document 1

DOCUMENTATION

1. City Manager’s report dated 21 September 2006 (ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0009).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 3 October 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

and Council / et au Conseil

21 September 2006 / le 21 septembre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager/

Directeur des services municipaux

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Kevin Kidney, Program Manager/

Gestionnaire de programme

Business Process Review, City Manager's Office/

Examen des processus administratifs, Bureau du directeur municipal

(613) 580-2424 x22358, kevin.kidney@ottawa.ca

CITY WIDE Ref No. ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0009

SUBJECT:	BRANCH PROCESS REVIEW PROGRAM MULTI-YEAR PLAN 2006-2012

OBJET :	PROGRAMME D'EXAMEN DES PROCESSUS EN VIGUEUR DANS LES DIRECTIONS - PLAN PLURIANNUEL 2006-2012

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council approve the Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan 2006-2012 as detailed in Document 1.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services généraux et du développement économique recommande au Conseil d'approuver le Programme d'examen des processus en vigueur dans les directions visant le plan pluriannuel 2006-2012, tel qu'il est précisé dans le document 1.

BACKGROUND

In November 2005, the City Manager put forward a recommendation and Council approved a Branch Business Process Review Program (BPRP) to identify major areas where savings, business process improvements and efficiencies could be achieved. The program was established on the principle that the public should expect savings from service delivery improvements, efficiencies and innovation every year.

In addition, a formalized program ensured a commitment to the contribution of the annual savings target included in each year's budget estimates. In 2004, the City Council determined that an annual savings target be included in each year’s budget estimates.

The challenge facing the City is how to best achieve annual service delivery savings from an organization that is already operating with significantly reduced internal capacity and administration. In order to make sure that an annual savings target is both attainable and sustainable, City Council approved a two-pronged approach in July, 2005. This approach, outlined in the report, Update on the Opportunity Log, 2005 Service Delivery Improvements and Approach to Future Savings (ACS2005-CRS-OCM-0003), has been designed to provide Council with an aggressive program that will see every branch within the City demonstrate how well they are doing with the stewardship of the public services they provide, and assist every manager of the City identify and realize all of the efficiency potential within their day to day operations.

In brief, the report highlighted that: “To expand on recommendations in the Long-Range Financial Plan: First Steps and in the CSDR framework, the City will develop a process whereby all Branches will undergo a comprehensive, in-depth services review within a six year cycle. These reviews will be undertaken with the assistance of external, independent resources…”

Towards this end, the City has developed a multi-year Branch Process Review Program that will help ensure an on-going, strong emphasis on efficient and effective service delivery and provide City management staff with the approach, methodology, and tools to support the achievement of maximum savings in these areas.

The Program is a fundamental part of the commitment made by the City in the Accountability agenda of the City Corporate Plan to manage its resources in an efficient and effective manner and continuously seek improvement. It will yield long-term efficiencies by examining key business processes within City branches. It will look at how the business processes contribute to the City’s objectives. It will involve the appropriate Standing Committees and Council, incorporate a strong challenge role and independent expertise to validate results and bring in a best practices perspective.

Each review will involve strong external challenge role and knowledge of what is being done elsewhere will be incorporated into each project. External members can be consultants or members of an external public or private organization with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area. External involvement is a key element in branch business process reviews that helps validate results and ensure objectivity, credibility and creativity.

Thus far in 2006, a consultant (KPMG LLP) has been selected and a Program Office has been established to provide the methodology, tools and training and customize it for the City of Ottawa. This methodology is currently being applied and refined through the execution of two pilot projects in the By-Law Services Branch and the Real Property Asset Management Branch. Terms of Reference for these projects have been approved by Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Corporate Services and Economic Committee respectively.

DISCUSSION

Under the Branch Process Review Program, all branches will undergo a comprehensive, in-depth review within a six year cycle. A set of established criteria was used to establish priorities for a multi-year overall BPRP plan, i.e. to determine the overall schedule for the branch business process reviews to be conducted as part of this program. The multi-year plan is presented to Council for approval and will be updated annually to reflect changing circumstances or emerging issues.

A number of factors have been considered in scheduling the BPRP reviews for the next six years:

· The need to review every Branch

· The need to balance the level of effort between years

· The need to respond to particular needs identified by recent audit, CSDR or other initiatives

· The need to identify savings in each year of the program

As well, there was an examination of the individual review areas or branches in light of the following factors that together were used to determine the scheduling of reviews from 2006 to 2012. These include:

· Magnitude of operating budgets

· Size of the branch (FTE’s)

· Scheduling of Auditor General Reviews

· Other initiatives that can be leveraged

· OMBI and other performance indicators

· Citizen satisfaction statistics

· Strategic considerations

· Input and experience of departmental management

On an annual basis, these factors will be reevaluated and revisions to the plan will be forwarded to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for recommendation and Council for approval.

CONSULTATION

There has been no public consultation regarding this item. Consultation took place with the City Manager and departmental management to identify and confirm the scheduling and priorities for Branch reviews.

Consultation took place with KPMG LLP to determine the project structure and the methodology to be employed during the project and factors influencing the scheduling of reviews.

All recommendations coming forward that require Council approval will incorporate a consultation phase in the process as required under the City’s public consultation process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The delivery of this program falls within the City Manager’s operating budget; ongoing funding is subject to annual Council approval of the budget.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1: Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan 2006-2012

DISPOSITION

Subject to Council approval, the City Manager's Office will proceed with the implentation of the Branch Process Review Program as identified in Multi-Year Plan 2006-2012.

Branch Process
Review Program
(BPRP)
Multi-Year Plan

September 21, 2006

II BPRP Background and Overview

A. Background

The City of Ottawa has adopted the principle that the public should expect savings from service delivery improvements, efficiencies and innovation every year. In 2004, the City determined that an annual savings target be included in each year’s budget estimates.

The challenge facing the City is how to best achieve annual service delivery savings from an organization that is already operating with significantly reduced internal capacity and administration. In order to make sure that an annual savings target is both attainable and sustainable, City Council approved a two-pronged approach in July 2005. This approach, outlined in the report, “Update on the Opportunity Log, 2005 Service Delivery Improvements and Approach to Future Savings (ACS2005-CRS-OCM-0003)”, has been designed to provide Council with an aggressive program that will see every branch within the City demonstrate how well they are doing with the stewardship of the public services they provide, and assist every manager of the City identify and realize all of the efficiency potential within their day to day operations.

In brief, the report highlighted that:

“To expand on recommendations in the Long-Range Financial Plan: First Steps and in the CSDR framework, the City will develop a process whereby all Branches will undergo a comprehensive, in-depth services review within a six year cycle. These reviews will be undertaken with the assistance of external, independent resources…”

Towards this end, the City has developed a multi-year Branch Process Review Program that will help ensure an on-going strong emphasis on efficient and effective service delivery and provide City management staff with the approach, methodology, and tools to support the achievement of maximum savings in these areas.

The Branch Process Review Program builds on the City's Competitive Services Delivery Review (CSDR) framework, which was approved by City Council as part of the 2004 Budget process. The CSDR framework provides a methodology for a broad-scope competitive services review. It is an important mechanism through which the City can assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs and determine whether savings can be achieved through outsourcing, managed competition or in-depth business process reengineering. However, the CSDR did not provide the means by which business process reviews would be conducted and opportunities would be identified.

The Branch Process Review Program framework includes provision for the carrying out of in-depth business process reviews as part of the overall approach.

B. Branch Process Review Plan

Under the Branch Process Review Program, all branches will undergo a comprehensive, in-depth review within a six-year cycle. A set of established criteria will be used to establish priorities for a multi-year overall BPRP plan, i.e. to determine the overall schedule for the branch business process reviews to be conducted as part of this program. The multi-year plan is approved by Council and will be updated annually.

i. Description of Business Processes and Branch Business Process Reviews

Business processes are a grouping of activities designed to produce defined outputs. The conceptual business process model is:

Inputs –> Activities -> Outputs

There could potentially be one or several different business processes within a department. Examples of different types of business processes would be:

q responding to emergency calls (in areas such as Fire and Paramedic Services), including resource dispatch

q responding to a service request or complaint, e.g. pothole, garbage collection, street light

q submission, processing and review of requests for permits and licenses.

q performance of an environmental assessment

In planning a branch business process review, a decision must be made at the outset about which processes within the branch will be examined. It would not be cost-effective to examine all business processes within each branch given limited time and resources. Therefore, only major business processes will be included in the branch business process review. These will be selected during the initial phases of the study based on their relative contribution to the overall outcomes of the branch. Most of those activities and processes that are not covered as part of the branch business process review will be addressed through the reviews that Directors and Managers will be undertaking to find efficiencies within their operations as part of their Continuous Improvement Strategy.

Each branch process review will be focused on how process outputs (that is, tangible products and services) are produced. The review will examine how core activities within a specific branch are carried out to produce these outputs. In those instances where inputs come from other sources or from activities that are performed by others but are inextricably linked to the process being reviewed, this will be taken into account.

In launching a review, it is essential to ensure the visions for provision of the products or services involved is clear, that the service levels have been established and the need is clear. The review is focused on how to produce the products or services as efficiently as possible, not about service level cuts. However if the review identifies that particular products or services require disproportionate resources or have a poor cost/benefit relationship, they will be brought forward.

Some of the fundamental questions to consider during the “as is” portion of the business process review and analysis are as follows:

Inputs

q Are each of the inputs logically required to generate the outputs?

q Are there more cost effective ways to obtain the inputs, i.e. cheaper, more timely, better quality, fewer errors or defects?

q Are we maximizing asset use?

q Are assets adequately protected and maintained?

q Can labor be more effectively managed – scheduling, overtime, absenteeism, span of control, etc?

q Do we have the right level of jobs for the activities required to be carried out?

Activities

q Are all the activities in the process needed?

q Is there any duplication of activities?

q What is the added value of each activity?

q How does each activity contribute to meeting customer requirements?

q Can activities be standardized or simplified?

Outputs

q Who receives the output & how does the output meet citizens’ needs?

q How is the output level determined? Is this the right output level?

During the “fundamental re-design” opportunity assessment, certain basic questions should also be addressed, such as

q What opportunities exist as a result of technological innovation?

q Are there economies of scale that can be achieved, e.g. by sharing services?

q Is there an opportunity to leverage purchase volumes?

q Are there opportunities to make significant improvements to the supply chain, e.g. just-in-time supply?

q Can staff be cross-trained or can we hire staff that is capable of handling a broader range of tasks?

q Are there labor practices that can be enhanced or jurisdictional issues that can be removed?

q Is the span of control appropriate?

ii. Who Will Conduct the Branch Business Process Reviews?

Each branch business process review will be carried out by a 3 to 4 person core project team with a mix of content, financial & process review expertise reporting to the project sponsor, the Deputy City Manager for that department. The core project team should be made up of:

q 1 project leader (potentially from the branch but not the Director)

q 1 person from elsewhere in the department (potentially Strategic Initiatives & Business Planning) or from another department

q 1 person from Finance, and

q a minimum of 1 member who is external to the department under review

The commitment of the project team will vary depending upon the scope and size of the activity under review. Complex projects may require a team of more than four dedicated, full-time team members. On some smaller reviews, the three or four person team may not be committed full time to the project. It is very important that a strong external challenge role and knowledge of what is being done elsewhere be incorporated into each project team, hence the need for one or more representatives from outside the department. External members can be consultants or members of an external organization with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area. External involvement is a key element in branch business process reviews that helps validate results and ensure objectivity and credibility. Objectivity will also be reinforced through the selection of Project Leaders who are not directly responsible for the operations of the branch, by having the Deputy City Manager act as project sponsor, and by inviting involvement by the appropriate Standing Committee at key points during the review.

iii. Standing Committee and Council Involvement

The multi-year BPRP plan will be presented to Council for approval. The multi-year plan will be updated on an annual basis and Council will be asked to approve each annual update. In addition, City Manager's Office will report back on an annual basis to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on the overall progress made in implementing the plan and the overall results from the reviews carried out that year.

Standing Committees of Council will also be invited to actively participate at key milestones during each review. The draft terms of reference for each branch process review will be tabled with the appropriate Council Standing Committee(s) at the outset of each project. Additional reports will be brought forward for approval as part of the process as required to provide status and further direction.

Finally a report will be tabled which defines the outcome of the review including opportunities for improvement and the cost of any redesign efforts prior to finalization and implementation.

iv. The Program Office

The Program Office will be responsible for coordinating all of the activities related to the Branch Process Review Program. This will include working with Council and Executive Management Committee on developing and maintaining the City’s BPRP multi-year plan. The Office will allocate resources to the conduct of specific reviews. The Program Office will provide training to the Project Review Teams. The Office will also be responsible for the development and on-going maintenance of the City’s BPRP methodology and training material.

v. BPRP Methodology and Tools

The City retained the services of a consulting firm to assist with the set up and launch of the BPR Program. This firm provided the base methodology for conduct of business process improvement initiatives. This methodology was customized to meet the needs of the City and the BPR Program, and is incorporated in the BPRP Handbook. Further modifications will be made to the BPRP methodology and tools as identified from the pilot project results and lessons learned.

vi. Links to Other Initiatives

The BPRP will complement the information provided by the Universal Program Review (UPR) conducted in late 2003. The UPR focused on what services the City delivers and what level of services should be delivered. Although BPRP does incorporate value-for-money considerations, it focuses primarily on how the City can deliver its programs and services in the most efficient manner possible. The BPR Program will focus on how the City can deliver its existing programs and services more efficiently and effectively and not on service cuts.

BPRP is also linked to another initiative being undertaken as part of the Accountability agenda included in the City Corporate Plan, the implementation of a corporate performance measurement and reporting framework. The City's performance measurement and reporting framework will result in performance information being generated that will be useful during the conduct of process reviews. For example, the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) is one part of the City's performance measurement and reporting framework. In each branch and for each service area within the branch, there are usually several different efficiency performance measures that can be considered. OMBI provides a considerable number of efficiency performance indicators that may identify a specific area to be reviewed or be of interest within a review.

BPRP is a management control to help ensure efficiency and effectiveness of programs and services. The Auditor General generally looks at the City's risk framework and the effectiveness of management controls. The audit reports may identify specific performance problems or issues, but will generally not provide the detailed solution to these problems. The BPRP program provides one approach to addressing any shortcomings identified by the Auditor General, and the audit findings will be taken into account in preparing the annual update, and determining which Branches to review in the coming years. The City Manager's Office will work with the Auditor General to ensure that work is coordinated, as appropriate and that the Auditor General is kept informed of the status of the program.

As indicated earlier, BPRP will complement the City’s CSDR framework that provides a methodology for conducting a broad-scope competitive services review. In some cases, a CSDR review may point to the need to conduct an in-depth branch process review, which would suggest moving that Branch up in the list of BPRB projects to be carried out. Conversely, the results of a BPRP project may point to the need to conduct a CSDR project for a particular service area if it finds efficiency and effectiveness issues that cannot be properly addressed through business process redesign.

III. Focus of Branch Process Reviews

In this Chapter, a typical full life-cycle approach to a major Business Process or Re-engineering Initiative is identified. Highlighted are some of the key lessons learned or tenets that should be considered in conducting projects of this nature. The particular focus of the work phases of the Branch Process Review Teams are then situated in relation to the overall full life-cycle framework.

A. Important items to consider when conducting BPR projects

During the past fifteen years considerable experience has been accumulated in the industry in the conduct of BPR and re-engineering projects. Much analysis has been carried out to identify factors that contribute to the successful completion of these types of projects. The following are some of the key lessons learned.

i. Build communications and change management activities into the entire process

Change can be a rewarding experience or it can be disruptive to the many areas that it touches. An organization’s ability to absorb change is critical to the success of the initiative. This ability to absorb change is weakened or strengthened by the approach and the people who are orchestrating it. Change of any magnitude can take place when carefully managed and addressed on a collaborative basis.

Many organizations have seen projects derail before implementation (or have been unable to achieve lasting change) because they have failed to adequately address the interdependencies among strategy, processes, technology, people and policies. Communications and change management activities must start at the outset of the project and be carried through each dimension.

ii. Ensure high participation of management, employees, and other stakeholders

Close stakeholder contact and involvement is important in all projects, but particularly when the exercise requires significant changes to current attitudes, behaviors, actions and business practices. An effective approach ensures participation and input from management, employees and other key stakeholders.

This is particularly important in the municipal context, as many constituency groups exist that have become accustomed to the current method of service delivery and business practices. While change may be welcomed in instances, the imposition of change without due regard for input and influence may not be particularly welcomed or accepted. As is the case for other initiatives, the consultation of relevant advisory committees and other groups should take place and be built into the communications plan for the project and be allocated sufficient time for considered input as well as feedback on recommendations.

iii. Employ proven project management approach to manage risk and ensure all required benefits are delivered on-time

A project of this nature and size can be threatening or intimidating to employees and stakeholders if not well managed and communicated from the start. Therefore, managing time and communications is critical. A structured and well-planned approach will be essential. Meetings and interviews must be well planned and communications must be well managed. A carefully planned project and risk management approach is required to ensure that all required program outcomes are achieved in the allocated timeframe.

iv. Assembling the right team to plan and lead the Process Review Program

A key element in successful re-engineering and process review initiatives is in selecting the right team to plan and execute/operate the Program. While the numbers of Team members and the individual skills may vary, the Team in general should possess appropriate skills in facilitation, change management, communication and project management, in addition to having a good understanding of the overall workings and operations of the organization, financial matters and process review. Care should be taken in selecting the team members. Each member will bring specific skills and experiences and will complement other team members to ensure that a strong multi-disciplinary team is assembled.

v. Just enough, just in time approach

Projects of this nature, risk getting bogged down in detail at various stages along the way. While the methodology has to provide rigor and be comprehensive, it must also be “light” enough to give review members the sense that this is “Just Enough, Just in Time”

vi. Simplified tools and techniques

Productivity and learning curves of project team members are positively affected when teams are able to use simple, familiar, easy to use tools. The methodology and tools employed on projects of this nature should use existing applications and tools wherever possible and steer away from reliance on complex technical solutions as the basis for a successful review.

B. Typical Process Improvement Re-engineering Approach

Business transformation initiatives are known by many different names—Re-engineering, Business Process and Performance, Business Process Re-engineering and so on. However, all of these variations seem to include the same fundamental aspects—agree on the direction, define and document the current state, identify opportunities to improve, design improvement options, implement and evaluate for further improvement.

The following graphic illustrates the typical phases and deliverables that might be produced in a full life cycle perspective of a re-engineering or process improvement initiative.

Strategic Direction and Planning

The first phase in any effective study process is to establish a clear understanding of the direction the organization wishes to move in. This involves developing a “Case for Change”, a clear statement of the reasons change is needed that all process participants can understand and relate to, and that will provide guidance throughout the process. The Case for Change must effectively communicate to the organization and key stakeholders why the organization must change and why this process to discover the degree of change is required.

The project management structure is also established at this time. A work program or plan for each study area will be developed providing a common base of understanding for all participants at the beginning of the project. The work plan will identify the main tasks, the individual or group responsible for their accomplishment and the timeframe. It will define the roles, responsibilities and involvement of senior management, employees, and other stakeholders.

Opportunity Identification

This involves performing “just enough” analysis of the current operations to uncover the major problems and opportunities for change, select “high-payback” areas or aspects of the organization upon which performance improvement efforts should be concentrated; establishing a baseline against which performance improvements will be measured; and sensitizing management and staff to the scope and degree of changes being considered.

High Level Design

Using cross-functional design teams, develop a creative/innovative portrait of how business will be conducted in the future, including initial impacts on business processes, information technology, facilities and equipment employed and human resources; establish estimates of associated benefits and costs.

The objective of this phase is to develop a portrait of how the organization will conduct business in the future. Design teams are chartered to develop the processes, often expanding the core team as required to pursue the particular opportunities identified. Alternative approaches are investigated and analyzed, leading to selection of the recommended approach for the future. There are a number of approaches to the analysis, and the best approach to follow will depend upon the service or function under review. It will often involve “best practice” comparisons, looking at how other organizations carry out the function, and may also include formal benchmarking to determine reasonable performance and resource levels. It may include process mapping and review to develop alternative “future states”. Financial analysis, market surveys (to identify technology options and costs, alternative service delivery approaches, etc.) and risk analysis can be important components. The result is a business case outlining the technology and human resources that will be required to operate in the new approach, and the nature and level of service that will be provided.

Detailed Design

Gain a full understanding of the consequences to the organization of implementing the preferred business solution (e.g. the interrelated impacts of simultaneous changes to processes, human resources, technology, policies, and facilities and/or equipment); refine the business case; identify the major milestones for activities related to implementation.

Build and Implement

Construct and test all elements of the infrastructure required to support the business solution; draft support documentation; validate key components of the IT system; modify/upgrade physical facilities and equipment, establish programs to help deal with a broad range of employee-oriented issues set in motion across the organization by the full suite of process, technological and cultural changes that have been designed and built; install equipment at local sites, conduct training and monitor compliance to new processes and policies.

Enhance

Put in place mechanisms to ensure that performance improvements resulting from the transformation exercise are sustained over time and ultimately lead to opportunities for additional performance gains; establish continuous improvement as an integral part of the organizational culture

C. City of Ottawa BPR Teams will focus on Opportunity Identification and High Level Design

The Branch Process Review Teams will be mandated with the conduct of the second and third phases of the life-cycle framework---Phase 2, Opportunity Identification and Phase 3, Design High Level, as shown in the figure below. Phase 1, Strategic Direction and Planning activities will largely be addressed through the Multi-Year Annual Plan and Program Office activities. It should be noted, that the City through the development and launch of the formal Business Process Review Program has already performed much of the work associated with developing the Case for Change in Phase 1.

To begin a Branch Process Review branches will be presented with a project charter, developed by the Program Office based on the sequencing approved by Council in the Multi-year plan. This Charter will trigger the beginning of a Branch Process review and the formation of a project team and identify the major stakeholders involved in the project and their roles and responsibilities, and provide pertinent scoping and other background information that may have been collected during the Strategic Direction Planning Phase of the Program.

The team will develop a project Terms of Reference that will be presented to the appropriate Standing Committee for approval. Once the Standing Committee has approved the Terms of Reference, the team will execute the branch review based on the prescribed methodology (see below) and report back to the Standing Committee with the findings and recommendations at the completion of the review. Each review will incorporate elements of performance measurement, external benchmarking and a comprehensive review of the current business practices of the branch. Each review will take between 3 and 6 months depending on the size and complexity of the branch under review.

External Challenge

A key component to each Branch Process Review will be a strong external challenge by industry experts from external public and private organizations to ensure that the review has been comprehensive and to draw upon their knowledge and experience in developing new and innovative ways to deliver service. These industry experts will review the findings of the project teams and will be asked to question and challenge the way in which each branch provides their services. The external challenge will draw upon professionals who are knowledgeable in the specific areas or services being reviewed so will be unique to each review project.

Overview of the Branch Process Review Methodology

IV. Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan

A. Establishing a base framework for the multi-year plan

The City of Ottawa’s Branch Process Review Program (BPRP) has been launched with the view that all Branches within the City would be reviewed within a six-year cycle. This will entail conducting a total of 31 individual reviews.

In reviewing the list of branches, a small number where identified where the scope of activities is so varied that it is recommended more than one review be carried out, each with a more limited scope and alignment with the corporate budget presentation. The branches involved and the scope identified for each branch review are as follows:

Utilities:

· Solid Waste Services

· Drinking Water Services

· Waste Water Services

Surface Operations

· Road and Sidewalk Operations

· Parks and Forestry

As well, a small number of services where identified where the scope of activities is closely associated and one review is appropriate. These are as follows:

City Management

· City Managers Office

· Deputy City Managers Offices

· Strategic initiatives

Fire Services and Paramedic Services

B. Build in Reviews of Cross-departmental/Branch Processes

While the focus of the BPR Program is on conducting reviews of Branch-based processes, there are many processes that are corporate in nature and as such cross many departmental/branch boundaries within the City. Where process “ownership” is clear the review of these cross-departmental process will occur within the context of the branch that maintains primary responsibility. Examples of such processes include the staffing process, supply/purchasing or budgeting. These will primarily be addressed within there respective branch reviews with consultation with the consumers of those services.

Corporate Process Review Approach

Hiring – and other HR processes part of Employee Services Review

Budgeting part of Financial Services review

Supply/Purchasing part of Financial Services review

As reviews are conducted other cross cutting issues may emerge that highlight the synergy between branches and provide opportunities for efficiencies. These processes may be sufficiently large to warrant their own special reviews within the Branch Process Review Program and will be considered in the annual review of priorities within the BPR Multi-year Plan or chartered as special projects outside of the scope of the BPRP.

C. Allow for exceptional situations

From time to time City initiatives or studies, or special circumstances will identify the need to address issues in certain City processes or branches. These tend to require current or timely attention, and as such may not have a long lead-time. Examples of these may include issues identified in the City Auditor General’s report. Changes in legislation, or available technology, or required service levels may also suggest the need to accelerate the review of a particular branch.

As needed, these exceptional situations may be added to the multi-year plan as part of the annual update process and prior to being forwarded to Council for approval.

D. Factors in Scheduling Branch Reviews

A number of factors have been considered in scheduling the BPRP reviews for the next six years:

· The need to review every Branch

· The need to balance the level of effort between years for the program office

· The need to balance the level of effort between years for individual departments

· The need to respond to particular needs identified by recent audit, CSDR or other initiatives

· The need to identify savings in each year of the program

This then lead to an examination of the individual review areas or branches in light of the following factors that together were used to determine the scheduling of reviews from 2006/2007 to 2011/2012. These include:

· Magnitude of 2006 operating budgets

· Size of the branch (FTE’s)

· Scheduling of Auditor General Reviews

· Other initiatives that can be leveraged

· OMBI performance indicators

· Citizen satisfaction statistics

· Strategic considerations

· Input and experience of departmental management

As each Department will have a stream of review activity, the Plan will ensure that not all of the selected branches for review for one year are drawn from one Department/Deputy City Manager. The Plan will spread the impact (staff) on resources evenly across the Departments of the City as much as possible. If, for example, two large Branches are to be reviewed in a year, consideration has been given to ensure that each of these Branches come from different departments.

Other factors such as staff availability, extent of recent change within the branch, and available BPRP budget are also considered in branch selection to further refine the multi-year plan.

F. Draft Multi-Year BPRP Plan

Applying the above criteria, it is proposed that the following selection of Branches be scheduled over a six-year period from 2006/2007 to 2011/2012. Upon the adoption of the Branch Process Review Multi-Year Plan, Year 1 projects will be chartered to begin in Q4 2006. Further details regarding each branch, such as, the budget and FTE’s may be found in the attached Appendix A.

City of Ottawa

Branch Process Review Program 2006-2012

Department

2006/2007

Year 1 Reviews

2007/2008

Year 2 Reviews

2008/2009

Year 3 Reviews

2009/2010

Year 4 Reviews

2010/2011

Year 5 Reviews

2011/2012

Year 6 Reviews

Planning, Transit and the Environ-ment

Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy

incorporating Community Planning and Design,

Transportation and Infrastructure Planning,

Environmental Sustainability

Economic Development and Strategic Projects

incorporating Strategic Projects (P3’s), Economic Development, Business Facilitation, Light Rail Office

Planning and Infrastructure Approvals

incorporating Development Approvals, Infrastructure Approvals

Building Services

incorporating Building Permits - Review, Approvals, Inspections & Enforcement; Legal services and integration

Transit Services

incorporating Public Transit,

Transit Security,

Para Transpo Services, Light Rail

Corporate Services

Real Property Asset Management (Pilot 2006)

Client Services & Public Information Services

incorporating Call Center, Service counters, E-mail enquiry service, Public information, Communications planning and content, Service integration including web site management, Media buying service, Corporate Accessibility Program

Financial Services

incorporating Budget development, Treasury management, Risk management, Financial processing, analysis and support, Accounting and reporting, Purchasing and inventory management, Property taxation, water billing and collections

Legal Services

incorporating Procedural, legal advice & representation, Preparation and execution of development agreements, Litigation by and against the City and Police Services Board, Real estate legal services, Corporate and commercial contracts, leases and agreements, Advocacy before tribunals and courts, Prosecution of municipal and provincial offences, Legislative and by-law drafting, Official Plan and zoning amendments

Employee Services

incorporating Labour Relations, Payroll services, Compensation and Benefits, Staffing, Employee health and safety services, HR planning and development, Corporate training and organizational advice

Information and Technology Services

incorporating Technology Infrastructure,

Systems Application Management,

Information Management,

Information Technology Architecture and Security

City Hall Services

incorporating Elected representatives’ support, Council and Committee services,

Policy services, Elections and MFIPPA services, Office of protocol, French Language Services, Courthouse and Provincial Offence service, Printing and Mail services, Volunteer services

Department

2006/2007

Year 1 Reviews

2007/2008

Year 2 Reviews

2008/2009

Year 3 Reviews

2009/2010

Year 4

Reviews

2010/2011

Year 5 Reviews

2011/2012

Year 6 Reviews

Public Works and Services

Traffic Management & Parking Operations Services

incorporating Pavement markings, signage and road safety devices; Traffic control signals; Red Light cameras; Street lighting; Parking operations; Traffic network mgmt; Traffic safety, investigation & studies; Right-of-way permits, by-laws and inspections; Active and alternative transportation facilities; Area Traffic mgmt

Vehicle & Equipment Services (Fleet)

incorporating Maintenance, Lifecycle management, operations, Transit and conventional fleet

Waste Water Services (USB)

incorporating Sanitary and storm sewer systems, Treatment and processing of wastewater, Storm water treatment and surface water quality

Drinking Water Services (USB)

incorporating Production and distribution of drinking water, water quality assurance

Solid Waste Services (USB)

incorporating Waste collection, Waste diversion, Landfill operations

Road and Sidewalk Operations (SOP)

incorporating Hard surface and roadside maintenance including winter maintenance

Parks and Forestry (SOP)

incorporating Parks and open space maintenance, Sports field maintenance, Tree maintenance, planting and removal, Community forests

Infrastructure Services

incorporating Construction services for development, Construction services for rehabilitation, Infrastructure management

Community & Protective Services

By-Law Services

(Pilot 2006)

Long Term Care

incorporating Nursing and personal care, Program and support services, Meal Services, accommodation, Outreach programs

Parks & Recreation

incorporating Child Care, Parks and Recreation programs

Housing

incorporating Housing programs, affordable housing, Residential and support services

Fire & Paramedic Services

incorporating Fire operations, Fire development program & operational support services; Paramedic operations, technical services & communications

Employment & Financial Assistance

incorporating delivery of Ontario Works program, Health and social supports, Home support programs, Home mgmt programs, Ontario Disability Support Program

Cultural Services & Community Funding

incorporating Community funding programs; Arts, heritage and cultural programs & services

Library Services

incorporating Borrower services, Information and reader services, Collections services, Virtual library services, Access and outreach services, Library board support

Public Health

incorporating Family and community health, Infectious disease prevention and control, Environment and health protection, Surveillance, emerging issues, education and research

Emergency Measures

incorporating 911, Office of Emergency Mgmt, Corporate radio system

City Manage-ment

City Management & Strategic Services

incorporating Office of the City Manager, Offices of Deputy City Managers, Strategic Initiatives, Business Planning, Performance Mgmt, Corporate communications

Appendix A

Details on City of Ottawa Programs and Service Areas

2006/2007Year 1 Reviews	2006 Operating Budget	2006 FTE
Real Property Asset Management (Pilot Project)	118,332,000	727.80
By-Law Services (Pilot Project)	13,562,000	146.40
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy	7,396,000	77.00
Client Services & Public Information Services	9,361,000	118.90
Traffic Management & Parking Operations Services	32,869,000	294.60
Long Term Care	41,745,000	559.35
Total Scope	223,265,000	1924.05

2007/2008Year 2 Reviews
Business/Economic Development & Strategic Projects	4,824,000	20.00
Financial Services	37,828,000	485.50
Vehicle & Equipment Services (Fleet)	165,706,000	592.23
Parks & Recreation	131,419,000	936.30
Total Scope	339,777,000	2034.03

2008/2009Year 3 Reviews
Planning & Infrastructure Approvals	10,201,000	122.49
Legal Services	5,713,000	53.00
Drinking Water Services (USB)	45,863,000	299.80
Waste Water Services (USB)	40,086,000	181.96
Solid Waste Services (USB)	44,267,000	69.75
Housing	116,396,000	65.40
Fire Services	104,365,000	990.00
Paramedic Services	49,880,000	439.00
Total Scope	416,771,000	2221.40

2009/2010Year 4 Reviews
Building Services	14,699,000	175.25
Employee Services	17,412,000	173.00
Road and Sidewalk Operations (SOP)	85,150,000	510.56
Employment & Financial Assistance	56,082,000	602.00
Cultural Services & Community Funding	33,118,000	104.70
City Management & Strategic Services	14,229,000	113.13
Total Scope	220,690,000	1678.64

2010/2011Year 5 Reviews
Transit Services	266,072,000	1816.70
Information & Technology Services	44,440,000	363.00
Parks and Forestry (SOP)	26,605,000	313.59
Library Services	27,715,000	452.42
Total Scope	364,832,000	2945.71

2011/2012Year 6 Reviews	2006 Operating Budget	2006 FTE
City Hall Services	20,800,000	123.34
Infrastructure Services	21,895,000	254.32
Public Health	43,059,000	448.00
Emergency Measures	3,265,000	5.33
Total Scope	89,019,000	830.99

	1,654,354,000	11,635

BRANCH PROCESS REVIEW PROGRAM MULTI-YEAR PLAN 2006-2012

PROGRAMME D'EXAMEN DES PROCESSUS EN VIGUEUR DANS LES DIRECTIONS - PLAN PLURIANNUEL 2006-2012

ACS2006-CMR-0CM-0009 CITY WIDE

Councillor Cullen questioned if the review of the Housing Branch, scheduled for 2008/2009, would include a review of Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC). He opined this was an organization that desperately needed to participate in the Branch Process Review Program (BPRP). Kevin Kidney, Program Manager, Business Process Review, City Manager’s Office, responded currently the intent was not to specifically include OCHC. However, he pointed out the scope for each of the individual projects would occur at the outset of each project. When the terms of reference for this review are brought to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSSC) and Council for approval, there would be an opportunity to include OCHC if that were the will of Committee and Council. Councillor Cullen indicated he would address this issue when the matter comes before HRSSC.

Councillor Stavinga stated she was delighted to see this important work being undertaken. The Councillor then questioned how cross-departmental issues would be covered in these reviews. She provided an example of a frustrating situation she has encountered with new development applications. She stated there is no one person or area authorized to oversee these applications and confer with other Departments to ensure that all of the conditions imposed on the development application have been met. As a result, it has fallen on her to follow-up with all of the various Departments, branches, etc. to ascertain if various conditions have been met on developments in her ward. Councillor Stavinga felt that after six years as a City, there should be better coordination and communication between the departments.

Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager pointed out the report identifies how the reviews will deal with cross-branch processes. With respect to the specific issue raised by Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Kirkpatrick assured the Councillor he had already had discussions about it with John Moser, A/Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management and with Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services, focusing on what changes need to be made from either an organizational structure perspective or process perspective. As well, this issue would be discussed at the upcoming liaison meeting with representatives of the Ottawa Carleton Homebuilders Association. He stressed this issue would be addressed outside of the BPRP and would not have to wait until 2009 to be addressed. Councillor Stavinga indicated she would follow-up with Mr. Kirkpatrick on this issue.

In response to further questions from Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Kidney confirmed the process will be flexible enough, that if it is decided there are a number of these larger corporate-wide or multi-branch/multi-departmental processes, these could be scheduled in as a specific review. The intent of the program, when it was originally brought forward last November, was to concentrate on the internal branch processes but the plan itself will be revisited on an annual basis and changes could be addressed at that time.

Councillor Jellett indicated he was pleased to see this program going forward, noting he too had encountered similar situations to those referenced by Councillor Stavinga. He suggested it would perhaps be a good idea for Councillors to advise the City Manager of situations where they have run into “brick walls”. With respect to the process, Councillor Jellett had concerns about the perception of the “bureaucracy policing the bureaucracy” and asked staff to comment on the safeguards built into the process.

Mr. Kidney advised there are a number of things built into the process that ensure objectivity. For example, the project lead could come from somewhere external to the branch under review and the team would be made up of staff from Finance and other departments. The most important aspect of the program, in terms in terms of ensuring that transparency, is the External Challenge Panel function that will review the findings for each of the branch reviews. The make-up of the External Challenge Panels will be changed to reflect the branch under review. He noted for the RPAM pilot project, the panel included the Director General of Real Property from Public Works and Government Services Canada; a senior representative from the Ottawa District School Board, Real Property Division, a representative from the University of Ottawa and also peer representatives from the Cities of Mississauga and Halifax.

In response to further questions from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Kidney advised for each review, staff from all levels (i.e. right down to the “shop floor”) will be interviewed. The project teams work independently from branch management and in cases where information is sensitive or potentially controversial, the project team would be able to liaise directly with the Department head.

The Committee then approved the staff recommendation.

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council approve the Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan 2006-2012 as detailed in Document 1.

CARRIED

I. Introduction

II BPRP Background and Overview

i. Description of Business Processes and Branch Business Process Reviews

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

ii. Who Will Conduct the Branch Business Process Reviews?

iii. Standing Committee and Council Involvement

iv. The Program Office

v. BPRP Methodology and Tools

vi. Links to Other Initiatives

III. Focus of Branch Process Reviews

i. Build communications and change management activities into the entire process

ii. Ensure high participation of management, employees, and other stakeholders

iii. Employ proven project management approach to manage risk and ensure all required benefits are delivered on-time

iv. Assembling the right team to plan and lead the Process Review Program

v. Just enough, just in time approach

vi. Simplified tools and techniques

Strategic Direction and Planning

Opportunity Identification

High Level Design

Detailed Design

Build and Implement

Enhance

IV. Branch Process Review Program Multi-Year Plan

A. Establishing a base framework for the multi-year plan

B. Build in Reviews of Cross-departmental/Branch Processes

C. Allow for exceptional situations

D. Factors in Scheduling Branch Reviews

F. Draft Multi-Year BPRP Plan

Year 1 Reviews

Year 2 Reviews

Year 3 Reviews

Year 4 Reviews

Year 5 Reviews

Year 6 Reviews